6 Full farm model
7.1 Computational model
This section gives an overview of the results from the computational model of Lillgrund. Instantaneous slices through the velocity field are used, together with the power outputs of selected turbines, to illustrate features of the wind farm flow dynamics and performance. To this end three wind directions are examined, namely 198◦and 236◦, which as table 1 shows, present a staggered arrangement to the oncoming wind, so that downwind turbines are relatively exposed, and 223◦where the rows of turbines are aligned with the mean wind direction. Turbines in row D are studied in more detail; this row crosses the gap in the array at positions D05 and E05, shown in Figure 3.
In Figure 24 we can see horizontal slices through the instantaneous velocity field, two for each wind direction spaced 5 minutes apart. The flow is perpetually unsteady in all cases, as expected from Large Eddy Simulation CFD simulations with the SEM inlet boundary conditions described in § 5.2.1. The eddies through the domain range widely in size, from 100 m to over 1 km, and the turbulence is highly anisotropic, with those eddies typically 5-10 times longer (streamwise) than they are across (laterally). This results in varying flow speeds, ranging from
approximately 6-15 m/s outwith the farm, and gusts can be seen passing through the wind farm, leading to higher wind speeds within. Turbine wakes are evident, with dark blue patches behind the turbines, indicating the regions of highest wake deficit; these wakes meander considerably. Wind farm wakes are also visible in Figure 24(a)-(d), extending downwind of the farm by approximately 3 km.
Large scale turbulence structures particularly above and upwind of the turbine array can be seen in Figure 25. However, a qualitative comparison between Figure 25(b) and similar figures from other LES simulations in Churchfield et al (2012) shows that the latter has higher frequency turbulent features especially near the turbine blades. This is not surprising, given that their simulations use a minimum cell dimension of 1 m near the turbines, whereas here the minimum is 5 m, therefore smaller eddies are resolved in the former. On the other hand, the large-scale turbulence structure seen in our results are not present in Churchfield et al (2012), who relied upon a log-law velocity profile passing over an empty domain to create turbulent inlet conditions. A better comparison can be made with Calaf et al (2010, Figure 1) where periodic boundary conditions were used to create sufficient upstream turbulence; the work presented here shows similar turbulent flow features. This suggests that the SEM boundary conditions strongly influence the aerodynamics around the wind farm, and the turbine wakes within it.
The acceleration of flow between turbines due to the blockage effect, known as jetting, is noticeable in the results. Figure 24(b) shows a gust of wind hitting the foremost turbines, B08, C08, D08 and E07, and a jet appears to pass around D08 and E07, before encountering turbines E06, D07 and D06. Figure 24(e) also shows this, with a jet passing between B08 and A07 towards turbine A06; between B08 and C08 towards B07; and where a 3km-long gust encounters turbines H04, H03 and H02 at the north end, the jet is turned inward of the farm towards G02.
The jetting has a more consistent pattern in the aligned case of 223◦, as the gaps between rows A to H in Figures 24(c) and (d) all show evidence of accelerated flow. Moreover, both figures also indicate that air in these regions can exceed the average upstream hub-height wind speed, implying that jetting is an important method for injecting kinetic energy into the internal farm flow, affecting wind farm performance, and is highly dependent upon the alignment of the prevailing wind to the rows.
The wind farm is visualised as an array of time-averaged power plots for the wind direction of 223◦in Figure 26. These averages were computed over the last 10 minutes of simulation, by which point the flow had fully developed. The leading turbines all have an average power close to P0, the median calculated from B08, C08 and D08. Immediately downwind, the performances of turbines B07, C07 and D07 drop to 20-30% of this value.
Surprisingly the turbines in column 6 with two turbines upwind show a mild increase in power, on average 37%.
After the empty space in column 4, D04 is over 50% of P0while E04 rises to 72%. This increase can be explained by looking at Figure 25(b), where the wind speed increases in the gap behind D06 and E06, as faster air flowing over the wind farm is entrained downwards and mixed with the wake of upwind turbine. Beyond this, the turbines’
performance remains at around 30%, before decreasing slightly below this in column 1. It should be noted there is a large difference in the mean power between D06 and E06; this is also seen between D04 and E04. There is no obvious reason for this unusual behaviour. It may be due to particular eddies passing those turbines and, were additional computing time available, longer simulations with greater averaging periods could be reduce these disparities in mean power output.
For wind directions 198◦, 223◦and 236◦, the time series of power output from selected turbines in Row D are shown in Figures 27(a), (b) and (c) respectively. As the rotors start from a stationary position, the power increases predictably for the first 4-6 minutes, before achieving statistically stable values after 10 minutes. The variability of power output is clear: while D08 for 223◦and 236◦appear to fluctuate about a value close to that shown in Table 3, the power can peak at 2250 kW or higher in both cases, as well as drop down to almost 1000 kW. This can be attributed to the passage of gusts of wind (and associated lulls) through the wind farm, causing the turbine rotor to speed up and slow down accordingly, and indeed these long, slow variations have a period of 3-4 minutes, which equates approximately to a distance of 2-2.5 km for a hub-height wind speed of 10 m/s. This observation agrees well with the size of the flow features shown in Figures 24 (c)-(f).
Comparing the aligned case in Figure 27 (b) with the non-aligned cases in (a) and (c), it is clear that the second and third turbines, D07 and D06, experience higher performance when non-aligned due to increased exposure to the wind. This effect is enhanced by jetting particularly at a prevailing wind direction of 236◦, where their power outputs are comparable to the leading turbine. Indeed for 198◦in Figure 27 (c), D07 spends the majority of its time outperforming the leading turbine. For this particular case, D08 is mostly underperforming, possibly due to insufficient hub-height wind speed; with jetting as a mechanism for accelerating the flow it would be possible for D07 to experience a wind speed greater than that upwind of the wind farm.
a) 198◦at t=15 min b) 198◦at t=20 min
c) 223◦at t=15 min d) 223◦at t=20 min
e) 236◦at t=15 min f) 236◦at t=20 min
Figure 24: Horizontal slices through the instantaneous velocity field at hub height for wind directions of 198◦, 223◦and 236◦.
a)
b)
Figure 25: Vertical slices through the instantaneous velocity field at t=20 minutes, for a wind direction of 223◦: a) cross-stream slice through the fifth column of turbines, and b) zoomed-in streamwise slice of instantaneous velocity field through row D.
Figure 26: Time-averaged normalised power plot for wind direction of 223◦.
a)
b)
c)
Figure 27: Power time-series for selected modelled turbines in row D, at wind directions of a) 198◦, b) 223◦and c) 236◦. The mean power is averaged over the final 10 minutes of simulation.
a) b)
Figure 28: Relative turbine performance of turbines in row C against wind direction; a) The median performance of all seven turbines C07 to C01 (pale blue solid line, gold narrow-dashed line, turquoise dash-dotted line; purple medium-dashed line, green wide-dashed line, red double-dot-dashed line, respectively); b) the median and interquar-tile ranges for turbines C07 (pale blue), C06 (gold with narrow hatching), C01 (grey with wider hatching).